Jesus Family Tomb - Forum - Was Jesus Married?

Home » Forum » General Discussions » Was Jesus Married?

Hello, guest

Name: JMD • Title: Was Jesus Married? • Date posted: 05/05/07 1:52

Q: The Jesus Dynasty Blog
Tabor's Blog — James Tabor
May 1, 2007

Was Jesus Married?

During my entire academic career stretching now over 30 years I have consistently taken the position that there is no historical evidence that Jesus was married or had children. As I put things recently in the Preface to my book, The Jesus Dynasty:

“The Jesus Dynasty has no connection to the recently popularized notions that Jesus married and fathered children through Mary Magdalene. While gripping fiction, this idea is long on speculation and short on evidence.”

I was, of course, referring to the notions made popular by the 1982 book by Michael Baigent, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and more recently by the runaway blockbuster bestseller, The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. There have also been a few scholars, influenced by some of the later gospel traditions (particularly the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip), who have argued that Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene included some type of sexual intimacy if not marriage. William E. Phipps published a full-scale study in 1970 titled, Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition (New York: Harper & Row). Phipps argued that Jesus’ status as a Jewish male, a teacher, and a rabbi, would have virtually required that he be married. I have never found these arguments from silence convincing, knowing that there were forms of Judaism, at least according to Josephus and Philo, that honored celibacy, and that Paul himself mounts a strong argument in defense thereof, even as a Jewish male and “rabbi.” I found the treatment summarized by Birger A. Pearson, “Did Jesus Marry?” (Bible Review Spring 2005, pp 32-39 & 47) to be quite convincing.

The Talpiot tomb has caused me to take another look at the evidence, since indeed, the “Jesus son of Joseph” of this tomb appears to have a son, “Judah son of Jesus,” and presumably a wife, perhaps the one known as Mariamene Mara. And yet, in looking at our New Testament texts, they appear to be devoid of any reference to such an idea. I have been wondering if there might be anything in these records that I might have missed.

Just recently I noticed something that others have perhaps noticed that I had overlooked all these years. I consider it very strong evidence indeed that Jesus was in fact married, and if married, the possibility that he had a child or children is quite plausible as well.

The seven early/authentic letters of Paul are our earliest direct and unedited witness to the early Jesus movement (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Phillipians, Philemon). Although Paul seldom tells us anything about the life, career, or teachings of Jesus, other than his theological treatment of his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead, he is surely in touch with Peter, James the brother of Jesus, as well as others who knew Jesus intimately in his lifetime.

On the matter of marriage Paul explicitly mentions that Cephas (Peter), the other apostles, as well as the “brothers of the Lord,” are accompanied on their travels by their wives, so that not only their expenses are carried by the community but those of their wives as well (1 Corinthians 9:5). One might assume those who made up Jesus’ council of Twelve, as well as Jesus’ brothers, would likely be married with children, but other than Peter’s unnamed “mother-in-law” being mentioned in Mark 1:30, no wives are ever mentioned much less identified by name. One might conclude, incorrectly, it seems, that the “silence” of the gospels regarding wives for the apostles and brothers of Jesus indicates they were living celibate or single lives. We have to accept that the gospels, as theological treatises, simply do not supply us with such details, particularly when it comes to women or children. They are simply not considered important to the story, but it does not mean they did not exist.

Earlier in this same letter Paul had mounted a vigorous defense of celibacy or emaining “unmarried.” Although he does not require it of his followers, he asserts that he lives the single non-sexual life and he strongly recommends it as the most practical as well as the most spiritually devoted lifestyle. He writes, in this regard, “I wish that all were as I myself am,” and “To the unmarried and the widows, I say it is well for them to remain single as I do” (1 Corinthians 7:7-8).

In this section of the letter Paul takes up a number of related topics, particularly whether divorce/separation is allowed and under what circumstances, but he is quite careful to explicitly state whether he has specific sanction from “the Lord.” It is quite important to him to bring in the authority and teaching of Jesus when he can to back up and lend weight to what he is saying. I think one can conclude that if Paul had known Jesus to have been single or unmarried, living a celibate life, he would have mentioned it prominently. In fact it would have been one of his main points. It would have been irresistible. He mounts every possible defense of celibacy, but in the end is only able to appeal to his own example. Imagine how much more rigorously he could have argued had he been able to say, “follow me here, as I follow Christ.” In this particular case I think his silence is “deafening.” As with Cephas, the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, he knows that having a wife as a companion is the norm and pattern in the group. Paul must have known that Jesus was married, and he, as our earliest witness, would surely have been in a position to know. When he can use the teachings of Jesus or the example of Jesus he does. Here is an obvious example where he can not.

____

Dr. Tabor noted this: "And yet, in looking at our New Testament texts, they appear to be devoid of any reference to such an idea. I have been wondering if there might be anything in these records that I might have missed."

Here's something else Dr. Tabor 'might' have missed? another clue to Jesus being married. I’ve certainly come across this theory before:

The wedding at Cana in St. John may be Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s wedding.

Jesus is directly called to this wedding, along with his disciples. Of course his disciples would be there if it were Jesus’ wedding. Why else would they be called along with Jesus to a wedding?

"And both Jesus was called, and his disciples to the marriage."

His mother Mary is there; so it’s family and friends/disciples of Jesus' - sounds like his wedding, doesn't it? Jesus’ mother Mary worried about running out of wine, and is rather forward with Jesus ordering him to replenish the wine.
[whether or not one accepts the miracle of water into wine is beside the point.]

The thing is, why would Jesus’ mother Mary be so concerned about running out of wine? Someone at a wedding, whether you’re a friend or some family member invited as a guest, wouldn’t be so concerned with not having enough wine. So why would Mary care? Why would she take responsibility for this if only a guest?

Well, she would be concerned if it was her duty as mother of the groom, as hostess. That’s the only way it fits, in this context. She acts like the hostess; the servants don’t argue with her and Jesus, they do what is asked.

Jesus' mother Mary is not, at least per the NT record, known to be so assertive and direct, and in authority as she is here at the wedding in Cana. Though it makes perfect sense for her to act this way if it is in reference to Jesus' marriage, and she is the mother of the groom, and it’s Jesus’ responsibility, as groom, to keep the wine stocked.

Right after the 'miracle':

"The governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”

The bridegroom being Jesus of course.

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/05/07 10:11

A: JMD,
Jesus would have to be married since he was a Rabbi.Do you think it might have been an arranged marriage as was the custom of their time.Matchmaking was big business .Or did he and Mary decide on their own thus breaking from tradition?

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/05/07 10:16

A: I have a copy of your book on order from Amazon.com.Can't wait to read it.

Name: Todd • Date: 05/05/07 13:52

A: Thanks for the quote from Dr. Tabor’s blog,

I’ve been researching the question of Jesus’ marriage every since I read “Holy Blood, Holy Grail“.

I agree that the wedding scenario makes a great argument for Jesus’ marriage. Why would a guest be bothered about if there was enough wine?
It would also fit into 1st Century Jewish culture.

Remember sex wasn’t consider dirty or unnatural until “the church” came into power. Was it St Augustine, it was one of the early Pope’s.

The old testament looks at sex as a gift from God and a very natural part of the human condition. Be fruitful and multiply. There are so many instances of sex and in the bible both good and bad.

Yes, I agree that the lack of comment could be as simple as it was just taken for granted because every one is married. If you were writing about people today there would be a lot of things taken for granted as being the norm and probably wouldn’t be mentioned by historians because it was so common as to be taken for granted. Tooth paste, combs, garbage bags, toilet paper, and so on.

So the lack of mentioning it in the bible would make total sense. Usually the easiest answer is the best answer.

Isn’t it stated somewhere in the Bible that Jesus came down to Earth to experience the human condition. So why wouldn’t he experience marriage too? He could better relate to relationships that way.
“My wife is upset that I’m running around out here with you, she says I better come home and settled down” “I hear ya man. Mary’s been whining about living on the road and wants to settle down too. She keeps throwing it in my face about being a carpenter’s son and I can’t even put a roof over her head.”

Alas, as with everything in the bible you can make a very good argument against Jesus being married.

It wasn’t that rare to be celibate either. The Essences were. So was Paul?

Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-17

Again, perceiving with more than ordinary acuteness and accuracy, what is alone or at least above all other things calculated to dissolve such associations, they repudiate marriage; and at the same time they practice continence in an eminent degree; for no one of the Essences ever marries a wife . . . . This now is the enviable system of life of these Essences, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase their dignity and majesty in a still higher degree by their approbation and by the honors which they confer on them.

Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.2

These Essences reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5

It also deserves our admiration, how much [the Essences] exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another.

Is Marriage Mandatory? Even this argument can be made from the Gospels both pro and con.

Can’t remember the link that I quoted this from.

“Another, quite different Fundamentalist confusion is the notion that celibacy is unbiblical, or even "unnatural." Every man, it is claimed, must obey the biblical injunction to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28); and Paul commands that "each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2).

So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

"I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

"does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).”

Yeah, quoting out of context can be fun!

So I disagree that Jesus was married but…….

If Jesus was from the line of David and a Davidic Messiah then having a male heir would make sense.
(I know…. the Davidic Messiah and Jesus’ true heritage is questionable).
Talk about circular, He was born divine but the gospels make pains to establish his heritage as being from the line of David. (I know to fulfill the Prophecies).

Wouldn’t the Talbot tomb’s “Jesus son of Joseph” be a slap in the face to Jesus? He was born divine? Virgin birth. Sorry off topic, stay focused.

I still can not come away with a yes He was or no He was not.

There is only a small amount of evidence or lack thereof.
Women in the 1st Century were not considered equal to men. Yet Jesus teaches and accepts support from women. Very un-1st Century.

I come away on the sidelines on this. Here are some of my reasons:

In a male dominated society it would be easier to accept Mary as His wife than as an equal to the disciples.
Hints about Jesus’ favor with Mary and a special relationship or special teachings to Mary would create tension between his disciples or out right jealousy. Mostly from the Gnostic Gospels. Yeah, they were probably written hundreds of years after Jesus died. I think The Gospel of Phillip was close to Jesus’ era.

Most of what we get about this attitude comes years after the fact by “the church” leaders who are anti-women. Making Mary the remorseful whore.

Pope Gregory the Great. “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?”

It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner. She had coveted with earthly eyes, but now through penitence these are consumed with tears. She displayed her hair to set off her face, but now her hair dries her tears. She had spoken proud things with her mouth, but in kissing the Lord’s feet, she now planted her mouth on the Redeemer’s feet. For every delight, therefore, she had had in herself, she now immolated herself. She turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance.” “Thus Mary of Magdala, who began as a powerful woman at Jesus’ side, “became,” in Haskins’ summary, “the redeemed whore and Christianity’s model of repentance, a manageable, controllable figure, and effective weapon and instrument of propaganda against her own sex.”

Personal statement here. I’ve been trying to strip away all of the Dogma from my past and trying to
put myself in a 1st century Jerusalem state of mind. Strip away 21st century thinking and try to put the bible into the context of the times.

There was something going on between Jesus and Mary. We are given only small hints of how special she was to Jesus and to his ministry.
Are we looking at it like this: A man and a women can not be friends or equals because of the adherent sexual tension between them. Do we have a 7th grade mentality here?
The only reason Mary was important was because she was married to Jesus and she wouldn’t receive any special treatment other wise? Not that she was a disciple on equal footing with all the others but since she was Jesus’ chick, she was tolerated and Jesus was only giving her special treatment because she was his old lady?

Was there a grand conspiracy against Mary? The answer is Yes. She was considered a whore by the church until 1969. But haven’t women been subservient to men in Judea-Christian tradition?

Did this have to do with the early church wanting to move as far away from pagan worship as possible. Isis, the sacred femine. Again in the context of the 1st century women were not considered very highly.

As with everything else when I try to answer one part of the Bible I come away with more questions. Once I started looking for the Historical Jesus I came away with so many more questions than answers. For me it did start with The Holy Blood, Holy Grail but even that book is so lacking in anything but off-shoot cults and traditions. Good book up until the last few chapters then it becomes full of itself. Remember it’s advertising. The Book that will bring Christianity to it’s knees or some other sensational blurb.

Does Jesus being married change his message? FOR ME PERSONALLY, NO. Does Jesus being unmarried change His message, No.

I feel Jesus being married makes more sense than not being married but I can’t prove it concretely either way.

To reiterate, maybe the simplest answer is the easiest answer.

Jesus didn’t get married because he knew he was going to leave his children fatherless and since he lost his “earthly father” (we lose Joseph early in the Jesus story, I know no proof of Joseph being alive or dead) he didn’t want his children to endure this burden. Maybe he understood that his life on the road would be too hard to raise a family and he was just being thoughtful of other people. He did that a lot.

I’m getting dizzy chasing my tail here….

Ever ambivalent,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/05/07 14:12

A: Couple of things:

I agree with Todd (good post--lots of wiggle room!) that it certainly makes no difference to my faith if Jesus was married. The human experience without marriage and family would be lacking in depth, I think.

Re: the suggestion that maybe he didn't marry because he knew he wasn't long for the world and didn't want to leave his family bereft--do we know when he actually realized what he had to do? Maybe he married early, telling Mariemne that he wasn't sure what kind of future they would have, and maybe she said a little time is better than none.

This brings me to the wedding at Cana--it works, except for the fact that it won't support Simcha's (Tabor's, too, maybe?) that the Beloved Disciple was Judah son of Jesus and a boy of perhaps 10-13. The wedding at Cana occured early in the years of his ministry, didn't it? If so, Judah would have been very small indeed at the last supper and the foot of the cross.

And Todd, about the quote from Josephus: [i]...but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.[/i] The lasciviousness of WOMEN??!! Since when, before 1970, were women as prone to having casual sex as men? Sounds very Pauline to me! Either that, or an excuse for variety! :)

Name: Todd • Date: 05/05/07 18:12

A: Ladyhawk,

You would think that Jesus knew He was special.

Mom was a virgin when she gave birth to Him.
Angels from God named Him.
Angels warned His parents to flee so He wouldn’t be killed.
Angels told His Mom about John the Baptist’s birth.
Angels told His dad to accept the virgin birth.
His King David lineage.

If you believe those traditions I guess Jesus knew He was Special.

I do like your “do we know when he actually realized what he had to do? Maybe he married early, telling Mariemne that he wasn't sure what kind of future they would have, and maybe she said a little time is better than none.” it puts more of a human context to Jesus.
There’s quotes somewhere that’ll prove He knew He was special or divine. Google it and I’m sure there’s thousands upon thousands of sites about it.

Jesus did exist in an earthly body, He was born, He had a childhood, He had friends, siblings, a mom, an earthly dad, He ate food, drank wine, walked from place to place, and probably even went to the bathroom on occasion. He prayed, fasted, was tempted, rose above that temptation, healed people, taught people, loved people and was crucified. What was more human than that?
I know He performed miracles and the virgin birth made Him different from mere mortals but He still existed in some sort of human form. Why not marriage and children?

Personal opinion alert!!
I like the “here as a human but better than a human” vibe to Jesus. In a strange way Jesus being married, having kids, and women being such an important part of His Ministry makes me feel like Jesus can relate to a dork like me. Women have been an important part of my life, my mom, my wife and my daughter. Having kids is the greatest duality of all. Some days they bring the greatest joy and some days errrrrrr…………….
That Jesus could relate on a basic every day human level and still preach what He preached makes Him even more special to me.
Since He was here to save us why not be one of us.

I love the 30 second sound bites “The discovery that will bring down Christianity” about every archeological find and all the controversy it brings with it. Yet the world still spins around and I bet people will go to some sort of church tomorrow. Some are even going to church today, for that matter. Why does it have to ruin religion, can’t it just change our understanding of Jesus and the times He lived in. A different understanding of Jesus and His message. Why not? It seems every era tries to make Jesus fit into the context of their time.

I know a Blasphemy, a Heretical/Heathen, insert your favorite expletive here, to damn me to the deepest levels of Dante’s Hell statement.

Really, does it take away His divinity if He was married? Where is that passage in the bible. Isn’t being born, being in love, having children, and family all gifts from God? Doesn’t the curve ball in Jesus’ saga come from The Resurrection/Transfiguration and no Tomb, no Scroll, no Book, or no Movie is going to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. That’s the Faith part, right.

I’m so glad that the missing early years are gone!
Unless you want to look at The Wandering Jesus Theories. Jesus was everywhere and hung out with everyone from Egyptians, Buddha, The Essences and I believe a young Elvis before The Vegas Years.

The story about being lost and found teaching in the Temple and a couple other things are all the Gospels address about Jesus’ early childhood. I understand that His birth was important and of course His death.
Oh Yeah, His message is up there too.

There’s a Gnostic Gospel that addresses Jesus’ early childhood. Kind of funny and very strange. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/05/07 18:27

A: I get the feeling you're banging your head on the wall, Todd. Honest, I'm not trying to be goof or anything--my question was on the up and up. Did he know ALL of his life what was going to happen? In what way would that make him human? Do we get to know, step by step, where we're heading?

Regarding your points:

Mom was a virgin when she gave birth to Him. (Okay, but do you suppose every year on his birthday they told him the story of how that happened? Maybe they told the rest of the village, too. Can we say "look askance"?

Angels from God named Him. (Lots of people have moms who claim to have had dream about naming them before they were born--doesn't immediately translate into "You're special, and you're going to die a horrible, bloody death for the rest of the rabble out there as a favor to God."

Angels warned His parents to flee so He wouldn’t be killed. (Okay, so THEY knew he was special. Do you suppose they actually burdened him with this knowledge as a child?)

Angels told His Mom about John the Baptist’s birth.
Angels told His dad to accept the virgin birth.
(Right, but again these are things that at least Mary "held in her heart." Probably Joseph did, too. Maybe when he had his bar mitzvah they told him some of it--and in Anne Rice's "Christ the Lord" rumor got to him--but it doesn't necessarily hold that he had the whole picture up front. He waited until he was 30 to hit the road....)

His King David lineage. (Every family in America can claim to be related to Royalty--doesn't necessarily mean any one of us is a threat to the Windsors.)

I guess I just have an idea that if he led a normal human life, he didn't put all this together as a kid, maybe not even as a 20-something, though at some point he must have been assailed with all kinds of unusual thoughts and insights.

Name: Shlomo • Date: 05/05/07 18:35

A: Questions will always be eternally prevalent, because the NT was writtten outside of the fence.

Name: Todd • Date: 05/05/07 20:19

A: Ladyhawk,

I’m sorry for being so flippant about your comment. You’re right I am banging my head against the wall but I do like how you can debate either side and still make a case either way. I get to casual about it and that’s disrespectful to other peoples views/opinions.

I think the mysteries of life and how we don’t know is what makes it interesting. Would it make Jesus more human? Wow, I don’t know but could you imagine learning you’re the Son of God? I’m not being funny here. How could you break that to someone and when?

Follow me on this and tell me what you think.

Jesus had to be literate or at least educated about The Torah. We get a glimpse at it from the Gospels. The story of His parents losing Him and finding Him in a debate in the Temple at a very early age holding His own.
Why would a peasant from Galilee be so well versed in the Torah unless He was being groomed, from an early age, to the Priesthood or something. In the 1st Century most Rabbi’s or Priests were born into it but Jesus‘ father is a carpenter. Why bother teaching Him to such a degree unless His parents had a reason.
So His parents could of easily been steering Him in a certain direction until it was time to tell Him. Very plausible.

We really have nothing but speculation about his early life.
Scholars speculate on His early life so why can’t we. Common sense and our own experiences can give us an insight to some basic things about childhood.

I agree with your post, maybe they did wait to tell Him, makes sense why he wasn’t heard from much until His 30’s. There’s discrepancies as to whether or not all of His family believed in His Divinity until after His death, so how can you reconcile that if He or they knew from an early age He was divine. It wouldn’t have come as a surprise to His siblings if you’re told all your life that your brother is divine.

All your counter points to my points make sense to me and there's no reason why your take on it isn't valid. Makes me look at it from a different angle, and that's cool. I'm willing to look at any new perspective.

Here's some quotes that could support hiding Jesus‘ identity.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/-issues/gn24/archaeologychrist.htm

“A-t- the beginning of Luke's gospel, an angel tells Zacharias the priest about the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi. The messenger prophesied by God in the Old Testament would be his son John (the Baptist), who would prepare the way for the Christ. The angel told him: "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John .... He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:13, 17).”

“One of the first people to appear in the New Testament account is King Herod. Matthew takes us to the court of Herod the Great: "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him. When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him ....
"Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, 'Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also" (Matthew 2:1-3, 7-8).”

John McRay, archaeologist and Wheaton College professor of New Testament, summarizes Herod's reign: "Archaeological excavations have uncovered a surprisingly large amount of evidence pertaining to Herod the Great .... Herod the Great was an Idumean who, in 41 B.C., was granted provisional rule of Galilee by Mark Antony [the friend of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra´s last lover] .... In 30 B.C. Octavian (Caesar Augustus) affirmed Herod's rule over Judea, Samaria, and Galilee .... Herod remained in power until his death in 4 B.C.; thus Christ was born in Bethlehem prior to that date" (Archaeology and the New Testament, 1997, p. 91).

“Having heard that a "King of the Jews" had been born, Herod was greatly disturbed by this potential threat to his power and throne (Matthew 2:1-3). When his scheme to identify the newborn Messiah failed (verses 7-8, 12), Herod lashed out violently.
"Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under [the approximate age of Jesus], according to the time which he had determined from the wise men" (verse 16).”

The massacre in Bethlehem was not out of character for Herod. A.T. Robertson, chairman of New Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, shows us Herod's savagery. Dr. Robertson describes Herod's cruelty even toward those in his own family:
"Those familiar with the story of Herod the Great in Josephus can well understand the meaning of these words. Herod in his rage over his family rivalries and jealousies put to death the two sons of Mariamne [his wife] (Aristobulus and Alexander), Mariamne herself, and Antipater, another son and once his heir, besides the brother and mother of Mariamne (Aristobulus, Alexandra) and her grandfather John Hyrcanus. He had made will after will and was now in a fatal illness and fury over the question of the Magi. He showed his excitement and the whole city was upset because the people knew only too well what he could do when in a rage over the disturbance of his plans" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Bible Explorer Software, 1997).
The New Testament description of Herod the Great is thus confirmed by what historians and archaeologists have found concerning his rulership, building projects, political strength and uncontrollable wrath toward anyone threatening his kingship.”

When the King is out to kill you it’s a good thing to lay low,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/05/07 23:02

A: Thanks, Todd. I didn’t think you were flippant so much as frustrated. I was just hoping I wasn’t a complete dope!

“When the King is out to kill you it’s a good thing to lay low.”

Let’s put that in another perspective: When the King is out to kill your CHILD, you’re very definitely going to lay low! Even when you get to Egypt, you’re not going to be spreading a story around that’s going to attract the local gossips. And if, God forbid, somebody gets wind of it, you’re going to play it down, not only in the neighborhood, but also in the family. I somehow can’t see the clan all sitting around the dinner table telling Jesus he was divine and the other kids that they better remember it!

Again, as both you and Shlomo pointed out, we’re just supposing here, We’ve got virtually nothing that tells us what Jesus knew and when he knew it (although there appear to be some charming fables abroad in Europe). We do have the story of the temple, though, and I believe it says somewhere that he was 12 when that occurred.

“Why would a peasant from Galilee be so well versed in the Torah unless He was being groomed, from an early age, to the Priesthood or something….”

Well, do we know who’s doing the grooming? Is Joseph the carpenter telling the local rabbi he wants his son educated for the priesthood, or is the young Jesus so esoterically curious and bright and skilled in reading and writing and the ability to discern the lessons of the Torah that he himself goes looking for more and attracts the attention of elders who want to teach him? The temple story tells us that he was curious enough about the ideas being expressed in the temple to slip away from his parents for purposes of engaging in debate, which would suggest that at 12 he had a very focused interest in spiritual matters. And whether or not his brothers and sisters were told he was divine, they were probably the only kids on the block whose brother was trying to be a rabbi at age 12, so they were at least marginally aware that his calling was of God.

Following that, in his teens, assuming he was divine, he would have found himself at some point becoming aware of things that others seemed to miss entirely. But embodied as he was in the “human experience”, I think it would have been a little while before he was sufficiently driven to start sharing his startling ideas and visions with his parents and perhaps asking questions. (I’m assuming here that he experienced a fairly typical adolescence—and anyone who has experienced raising adolescents knows they make a huge deal out of things that don’t matter and hide the stuff that actually does. It’s in their contract.)

I expect it took him his teens to fully grasp his nature, and to establish the relationship THAT required with the Almighty--and even then, I’m betting it took another decade before he was privy to the whole plan—because he was a human being and it takes awhile to come to grips with that sort of thing and still keep your wits about you. I notice a lot of people seem to think he was very self-aware (read god-like) all his life, but it seems to me if he had been that he would not have suffered so in the Garden on the night before he died, nor engaged so fully in the experience of death the next day. If he always knew who he was and what he was about, he would not have been afraid, would he? He would have known it was but a moment on the edge of eternity.

I do go on. Fun though, to speculate!

Name: Shlomo • Date: 05/06/07 0:45

A: Herod the Great was the second son of Antipater and Cypros, he was also the grandson of a Edomite proselyte and was not authorized to be a king. He obtain and kept his position of power through a continuous bribery of Roman leaders. Is there secular evidence or documentation of Herod acutally giving the order to kill all new born baby boys?

Name: Todd • Date: 05/06/07 12:03

A: Ladyhawk,

The Gospels takes great pains to prove Jesus’ lineage, to fulfill the prophesies, as you have pointed out anyone can trace themselves back to royalty. Very true. Watch out England I’m coming for the throne!

Like we’ve been debating, when and how did Jesus become aware of His destiny. It is plausible that Jesus may have been unaware of His true purpose during His youth. I tend to believe He knew of his connection to King David as that would be family lore. As with my family, the stories of who I am related to have been told and retold since I was a kid. So I think at the very least He knew He was from royalty, as would His brothers and sisters. We all like brushes with greatness.

Now the gospels get dicey as to which lineage they are referring to, some have claimed that Joseph’s and Mary’s lineage were switched. The question being, in accordance with Jewish Traditions, would Jesus be granted instant access to the priesthood. To me, that would explain His deep understanding of The Torah.
I still come back to the question could he join the priesthood if His father was a carpenter? Would He have been taken to a “school”, or Monastery, or whatever was the equivalent in 1st Century Jerusalem for education? It would explain why He wasn’t talked about if He was at school, maybe.

Looking at John The Baptist’s lineage you find that:

Quote from this website:
“John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias, a priest of the course of Abijah, and of Elisabeth, one of the Daughters of Aaron. This lineage granted John the automatic priesthood of Aaron, thereby giving him authority to perform baptisms. As Elisabeth and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were cousins, John and Jesus were relatives. It is believed that John was born six months prior to the birth of Jesus Christ. John the Baptist’s birth was considered a significant event, as Elisabeth was thought to be infertile According to the New Testament, John the Baptist’s birth was announced by the angel Gabriel.”

The other point is Jesus’ brother James was questioned by Paul, I believe, as to who Jesus really was and what happened at the crucifixion. I think Paul spent a couple weeks talking to James. Wouldn’t you, in just normal conversation, talk about Jesus’ childhood or some funny antidotes about Jesus’ life? I know when I have meet with relatives or friends, at funerals, conversation naturally goes to the deceased and their lives.
Wouldn’t you think that James would have talked about his Brother and His entire life not just His Ministry. Granted, His Ministry was the most important part but still…..

You know we weren’t alone in our curiosity and you see a need to explain Jesus’ early life: The Infancy Gospel for instance.

http://www.gnosis.-org/library/inftoma.htm

“IV.- 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.”

Yeah it is fun to speculate,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/06/07 13:14

A: The story you quote there in the infancy gospel is one that was cited and used by the novelist Anne Rice in her book, "Christ the Lord." The book actually opens with a very young Jesus performing this shocking act in a burst of anger against a bullying playmate. Almost immediately he realizes he has done something dreadful, and in the novel he runs back and secretly calls the boy back to life. As you can imagine, the neighborhood gets a little uncomfortable after that.

Anne Rice is, admittedly, a weird sort of place to find a luminous narrative of the early life of Jesus, but her book is really sensitive and thought-provoking. Her young Jesus is, at 7, just beginning to understand things. And he is a little frightened.

Maybe Shlomo can help here with regard to how a carpenter's son got such an education in the 1st century, if at the time such a thing would have been impossible. What were the social and educational pathways of the time? Was there a method by which a precocious child of the working class could be taken in for teaching with an eye to the priesthood?

And while we're at it, getting back to the original focus of this thread, how could it be that a woman "of means" as Mary Magdalene is said to have been, be married to an itinerant rabbi who came of peasant stock (notwithstanding the fireside stories of King David)?

I am obviously no Biblical scholar, and I confess I get a little bored when the whole "lineage" thing comes up. It smacks of deus ex machina. The power of what God ostensibly does here is in great part about the symbolism: he did not choose a princess upon whom to bestow his seed, he chose a simple peasant girl of simple faith. That says volumes about artificial constructs of human worth; God obviously meant to make a point, don't you think? And the point wasn't that, when all was said and done, this was a really a hidden prince who deserved a throne. The point was that this locus of power was altogether different from anything men had conceived before.

Your question with regard to James and Paul is really intriguing. I confess to a real bias when it comes to Paul; I think he rather rearranged things to his own liking. Almost everything in doctrinal Christianity that can lead to extremism seems to have its origins in Paul. I'm beginning to think he was the James Dobson of his time....(but this mostly instinct on my part. I can't point to anything to prove it.)

Of COURSE James would have wanted to talk about his brother, and all the things he remembered of him. UNLESS he realized he was talking to someone who really didn't get it, when all was said and done--somebody who was hell bent on making the Truth over in his own image. Perhaps James deliberately held things back, thinking that the less information Paul had, the less trouble he could make. Right. Like that ever stopped a fundamentalist! There is some historical support for the idea that James and Paul did not see eye to eye, I think.

I do realize of course that the idea underlying this train of thought is that there was nothing to tell; that actual divinity did not enter in to the equation. That Jesus' language was misunderstood and that he never meant to say he was actually divine. Certainly that can't be avoided. And just as certainly there are no facts and figures to disprove it. It exists in as much a state of supposition as anything else here, and it falls to the scholars to shed light on it (and perhaps, also, on St. Paul!)

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/06/07 15:05

A: From "Insight on the Scriptures":

"This occasion, with Jesus' visit (as a 12-year-old) to the temple, where he engaged in a discussion with the Jewish teachers that left them amazed, is the only incident of his early life recounted in some detail. Jesus' reply to his worried parents when they located him there shows that Jesus knew the miraculous nature of his birth and realized his Messianic future. (Luke 2:41-52).

Reasonably, his mother and his adoptive father had passed on to him the information obtained through the angelic visitations as well as through the prophecies of Simeon and Anna, spoken when the first trip was made to Jerusalem 40 days after Jesus' birth. (Luk 2:25-38)

Jesus evidently did not make a showy display of his wisdom and superiority as a perfect human, as is perhaps indicated by the fact this his half brothers did not exercise faith in him during his ministry as a human, as well as by the disbelief most of the population of Nazareth showed toward him." (John 7:1-5; Mark 6:1, 4-6)

Re his education:

"He regularly attended the synagogue services each Sabbath. He was educated, as is shown by his ability to find and read sections from the Sacred Writings, but he did not attend the rabbinic schools of ""higher learning"". (Luke 4:16; John 7:14-16)

Name: sam • Date: 05/06/07 21:19

A: Ladyhawk,

You mentioned the following in your last post:
"Your question with regard to James and Paul is really intriguing. I confess to a real bias when it comes to Paul; I think he rather rearranged things to his own liking. Almost everything in doctrinal Christianity that can lead to extremism seems to have its origins in Paul. I'm beginning to think he was the James Dobson of his time....(but this mostly instinct on my part. "I can't point to anything to prove it"
-------------------------------------------
Jesus- said:
"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and THOSE DEFILE THE MAN. Mt-15:18

And you said: "I can't point to anything to prove it." ( that is about Paul).But I am going to bring to you Paul's word which will defile him.
PAUL’S DEVELOPMENT AND DISCOVERY

Catholic online wrote: - “Paul, shows himself to be a profound religious thinker.(unfortunately brilliant scholars spend their whole life time to figure out what he thinking about).
- and he has an enduring INFLUENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY,”
- “Paul was the FIRST TO DISCOVER and preach THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD.”
While the gospels say: “JESUS OF NAZARENE, WHO WAS A PROPHET...IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, AND ALL THE PEOPLE.”

Who knows better, GOD or Jesus and all the people who been with Him, or Paul? .
Let us go back and use the LOGIC to find the truth:
A- DEVELOPMENT of Christianity.
- Did Jesus fulfill His message, which He brought from the father, or He did not?.
- Was His message underdeveloped, and He left it for Paul and the others to develop?.
- Does the people around Him understand His very simple words, and message?, or not, and was His message not completed, So Paul and the others can fulfill what Jesus did not?.
B- FIRST TO DISCOVER.
(Discover as it came in the Oxford dictionary: “Acquire knowledge or sight of by effort or chance; be first to do this particular case.”)
- let us first look at Paul’s way of life, taken from his words and works:
Galatians- 2:13 “For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond any measure and tried to destroy it.”
(From his statement here we understand that he has no KNOWLEDGE about the teaching of Jesus, and he never saw Him,” SIGHT”.)
- then second, let us bring his SIGHT (vision- which came at the time while he was following the Christians to prosecute them) and what he said about it:
2Corinthians- 12:2 “ I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-whether in the body I DO NOT KNOW, or out of the body I DO NOT KNOW, God knows.”
(I think this statement from Paul is very hard to understand, because it does not have any logic in it.”in or out from the body , I DO NOT KNOW”, if you understand it?. If you do, you can explain it to me.)
2Corinthians- 12:4 “Was caught up into paradise* and HEARD INEXPRESSIBLE WORDS, WHICH A MAN IS NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK**.”
(Again here, we can see clearly that there is no logic whatsoever in this statement, Inexpressible words....no man permited to speak !!!, who do speaks unexpressible words?)
* - Here Paul, visiting the beautiful paradise, and not telling us anything about it.
**- Even with permission no one can speak inexpressible words , because the people who will hear him bumbling, they will surely say: ‘he is out of his mind’.
- third, his EFFORT. There was not much effort in making Jesus the son of God. He was born in the land were the Greek and the Roman worshiped their many Gods who had mothers, wives and sons. And he spent no effort when he took out the word man and change it with the word God.
- forth, the CHANCE. Paul’s new idea was rejected by Jesus follower, who knew Him well and understand His message. But Paul took the chance, and his invention which became a first discovery to what Jesus suppose to be worked perfect, but by force.
- fifth, Do you know that WE (Paul and his followers) WILL JUDGE ANGELS?.
(There is any LOGIC in this statement?. Can those men take the place of God in the judgment day?. Can they judge God’s angles?. Is that what Jesus mentions, as it is a blasphemy against the holly spirit?)
Matthew-12:32 “Whoever speaks a word against the son of man (Jesus), it shall be forgiven him, but whoever speaks against the holly spirit (God), it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”

-Now, let us read these two verses from PAUL letters too:
Galattians-1:20 Now in what I am writing to you, I ASSUR YOU BEFORE GOD THAT I AM NOT LYING.
- A person who says these things is the one no one trust , a person who been trusted, no need for him to assur the others that he is telling the truth and swear to prove it.
Romans-9:1 I AM TELLING THE TRUTH in Christ, I AM NOT LYING, MY CONSCIENCE TESTIFIES WITH ME in the holy spirit.
-Again, Paul testify by GOD, the Holy Spirit and by JESUS CHRIST , and not by the son of GOD?.
- Then, he lies :
Romans 3:7 But if THROUGH MY LIE the truth of GOD abounded to his glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner.
-Is that means that HE is lying, or what?. Because lying never bring the truth , and we will never get the truth through from a person who lie.
-He was judged before as a sinner, and still judged as a sinner after, that is by his own words. And from his own words came this:
Romans 3:8 And why not say, “LET US DO EVIL that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.
-Is that means that HE justified doing evil thing, or what?, and does it ever good comes from evil?. (some Christian they try to justify this, but that is wrong when it said in the first place)
-Questions?, why HE should press on, that HE is not lying so many times?, and HE used GOD, and the Holy SPIRIT as a witness?, is that in itself a very wrong thing to do in the first place?.
- Does He have no confidence in himself?, or it is the others who run the other Churches has no confidence in him?,
Why He should write?:
2Corinthians-11:16 Again I say, LET NO ONE THINK ME FOOLISH; BUT IF YOU DO, RECEIVE ME EVEN AS FOOLISH, so that I also may BOAST A LITTLE.
2Corinthians-11:19 For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly.
-Did any one think or said that he is foolish?, and whom?. Why he want to boast himself instead of being a humble man?.
JESUS said:
MATTHEW- 15:10 “ it is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
-It seems always, and clearly, that Paul wanted to press his own views, no matters what, lying, do evil, or by robbing if needed be, and even to use force if needed too, or by calling himself foolish, and in any other means if needed .
So HE said,
2Corinthians-11:5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.
2COR. 11: 8 I ROBBED OTHER CHURCHES by taking wages from them to serve you.
- IT IS NOT ONLY ROBBERY BUT A BRIBERY TOO.
1Corinthians-4:20 “For the kingdom of GOD does not consist in words but in power .
-But he did not stop to say what HE wanted to say about himself, but he went much further when he said:
1CORINTHIANS -6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world?..
( HE is right, because now, there are saints more than we can count , ten thousands or more)
- At this point, you might ask this question: “how can you write such a things about Paul, and he is after all a saint”.
-FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT I AM DEFFENDING JESUS from the others.
And my answers will comes in two parts; the first is asking you to go back and read the words of JESUS which show you all the truth, and separate HIS words from the others, because I myself every time I wanted to find the truth I go back to JESUS words and no one else. And the second part I am putting it as questions to you: Can you tell me if Paul became a saint by the word of JESUS?. Is he one of the many thousand who became saints?, and by whom?. Did they became saints by the order of a few man (popes & bishops, the rulers of the Christians who burn and kill anyone not following their teachings) those wearing long and fancy robes and sitting on golden chairs, and holding very high positions from which they created by themselves?,
and those the ones JESUS mention them, and if you did forget, then you should go back and read the Bible. Adding to that, what Jesus said about those people:
- “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of GOD in order to keep your tradition”.
-These are not my words, but the words of JESUS , and HE is always right.
1COR 6:3 Do you not know that WE WILL JUDGE ANGELS ? How much more matters of this life?
1COR 1:25 Because THE FOOLISHNESS OF GOD is wiser than men, and THE WEAKNESS OF GOD is stronger than men.
-Can PAUL say that, when JESUS say this :
MATTHEW-12:31 ......But blasphemy against the SPIRIT shall not be forgiven.
12:32 .....But whoever speaks against the HOLY SPIRIT , it shall not be forgive him; either in this age or in the age to come.
-Can we believe that the saints which they created by men’s orders, will judge GOD’S ANGELS, and that is only according to PAUL’S new laws . Are the angels, ‘GOD’S angels?, which been created not from earth?, and they are not from flesh as we human are, and no one can or will see them except those and only ones chosen by GOD, like ABRAHAM, MOSES, MARY, JESUS, and other prophets. And how we human can judge them if we do not see them . (LOGIC, LOGIC, WHERE IS THE LOGIC?)
Can HE use the term foolishness, and weakness attached to the ALMIGHTY GOD , and compare God with people?, I don not think that he has any right to say that, and put himself and the others the human to judge the ANGELS, just to prove that he is above the others, even above GOD’S ANGELS, and just because he wanted to prove that he is right, and behind any judgment from the others, and because all the others are inferior, and they are always wrong ; which HE said about them:

ROMANS-2:21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
-Here he pointed his finger at those in other churches who are not fit for teaching , and among them thieves and robbers, and did he forget what he said, “I ROBBED OTHER CHURCHES”. I think he forget what he said about himself, is that true?.
ROMANS-2:22 You who say that one should not commit adultery? Do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, DO YOU ROB TEMPLES?.
- And again he forget that he is a robber and he admit to it, but his claims against the other has no proof. let us not forget what he said about lying.
ROMANS-2:23 You who boast in the law, through your breaking the law, do YOU DISHONOR GOD.
-Did he forget that himself dishonored GOD by mentioning the foolishness, and weakness of GOD .
1COR. 6:5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that THERE IS NOT AMONG YOU ONE WISE MAN who will be able to decide between his brethren.
-Question? Are they all not wise, and they all are bad out there?, not even one good?. Let us go back to what JESUS said:
LUKE- 6:41 “ Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
LUKE- 6:39 And HE also spoke a parable to them; “A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit?
-Question: Did JESUS used his mighty power which no one on this earth have or will have? ,did he raised the dead?, can HE use his power to punish those who are not believing in GOD with more than A ROD?. But PAUL has to use the force in every way HE could.
1Cornintians 4:21 What do you desire? SHALL I COME TO YOU WITH A ROD, or with love and spirit of gentleness?,
-Either you follow me, or I will be using the ROD, that is PAUL doctrine .
-PAUL asking for rewards, and his service will not be given for free .
1Corinthians 9:7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?.
1COR. 9:18 WHAT THEN IS MY REWARD? That, when I preach the gospel, I MAY OFFER THE GOSPEL WITHOUT CHARGE, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
-Question?, is HE asking for something in returns?. Nothing for free, even in preaching the gospel, and the words of God?. Can you see what is going on in his mind like I do?.
1Corinthians-9:19 For though I am free from all men, I HAVE MADE MYSELF A SLAVE TO ALL, SO THAT I MAY WIN MORE.
-Here Paul prove that he is working for himself and not for the spreading the word of God , (WHAT THEN IS MY REWARD...I MAY OFFER THE GOSPEL WITHOUT CHARGE... & ..THAT I MAY WIN MORE)
-Did you get the clear picture?

1Cor. 9:20 TO THE JEWS I BECAME AS A JEW; SO THAT I MIGHT WIN JEWS; TO THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW, AS UNDER THE LAW THOUGH NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER THE LAW, AS UNDER THE LAW, SO THAT I MIGHT WIN THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW;
- we should not forget that those who are under the laws are those who follow the laws and commandments that came to moses, and Jesus Himself followed these laws:
"DO NOT THINK THAT I CAME TO ABOLISH THE LAWS OR THE PROPHETS; I DID NOT COME TO ABOLISH BUT TO FULFILL. MT5:17

1COR. 9:21 TO THOSE WHO ARE WITHOUT LAW, AS WITHOUT LAW OF GOD BUT UNDER THE LAW OF CHRIST, SO THAT I MIGHT WIN THOSE WHO ARE WITHOUT LAW.
- LAW OF GOD.....LAW OF CHRIST!!!!, JESUS FOLLOW THE LAW OF GOD ONLY, THERE IS NO OTHER LAW.
1COR. 9:23 I DO ALL THINGS for the sake of the gospel, SO THAT I MAY BECAME A FELLOW PARTAKER OF IT.
- For the sake of the Gospel... to be partaker of it....I DO ALL THINGS .....SO THAT I MAY WIN MORE. !!!,His word become a part of the holy book, and Christian use his word to support any arguement about Jesus instead of using Jesus word!!!.

1COR. 10:33 Just as I also PLEASE ALL MEN IN ALL THINGS,
not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.
-That is not true if we put his words, and compare them with his other words:
"not seeking my own profit ".....then....."WHAT THEN IS MY REWARD...I MAY OFFER THE GOSPEL WITHOUT CHARGE... & ..THAT I MAY WIN MORE"

JESUS SAID: “.....what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

The following are the sammary of the words which came from Paul’s mouth:
- Use the rod - I will not give for free - what is my reward - offer the gospel without charge - on my own expense- made myself slave - for the Jew, I became a jew - for the one without law, I became as without law - I please all men - I judge the angels - let us do evil - I am not fit to be apostle - I DO ALL THINGS .
- Here I lay down in front of every one the summary from some of Paul’s letters, and this time I will leave it to those who understand the words of Jesus, to judge him by his words, and through his thinking.
- I DO ALL THINGS; Is that means that PAUL wanted TO BE A PARTAKER IN THE GOSPEL no matter what he does , and no matter how he does it?, and why a great and strong person like him has to show himself in so many faces just to win?, can he just be himself, and using only his clear and convincing ideas and vision to win the others, and be able to convince them about the truth, without using the ROD, and without acquiring the THE MANY FACES HE HAVE?. Is HE working for the others, and the gospel, or just for himself?.
1COR. 9:8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or DOES NOT THE LAW ALSO SAY THESE THINGS?.
-Did we forget what PAUL says just before few lines “though not being myself under the law”, then go back to say “the law also say these things .”
What law, and how many laws are there?, there is only one law for the believers, the law of GOD?, from ABRAHAM , to MOSES, and then JESUS came to fulfill, and not to abolish the law of GOD. let us read what JESUS said:
JOHN-7:16 So JESUS answered them and said, “MY teaching is not MINE, but HIS WHO SENT ME.
John 7:17 “If anyone is willing to do HIS WILL know of the teaching, whether it is GOD or whether I SPEAK FROM MYSELF.
John 7:18 “He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but he who is seeking THE GLORY OF THE ONE WHO SENT HIM, he is true, ....
John 7:19 “DID NOT MOSES GIVE YOU THE LAW, and yet none of you carries out the law? Why do you seek to kill me?.

- These words been spoken by Jesus, while He was followed by those who wanted to kill Him and kill His followers, among them Paul and the others (Jews & Romans) "Galatians-2:13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, HOW I USED TO PERSECUTE THE CHURCH OF GOD BEYOND MEASURE AND TRIED TO DESTROY IT"
-These are his words, after Jesus death, I do not think he loved Him or His people, and he is nothing but a well educated, and smart and an opportunist who try to gain something when he saw the Christian movement successfull in Damascus, and he claims the vision and shows that he became a good follower!!!, but he went further to make Jesus the son of God, against the other Chritians teachings in the holy land and he succeed by using the force.

"but even if we, or an angel from heaven !!!!!!, should preach to you a "gospel" contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!!!!!!"
-If we...... contrary to what we !!!. Cannot be accepted LOGICALLY, people should understand that, that prove he is not telling the truth.

- "ACCURSED", His follower followed his steps, and they killed and burned and robbed, because they been told that their sins will be forgiven by Jesus, and I do not think that is right from my own point of view.

God bless you.

Name: Todd • Date: 05/07/07 1:11

A: Ladyhawk,

The Infancy Gospel is bizarre. I think it was trying to show Jesus coming to terms with superhuman powers and the responsibility of those powers. Jesus’ “hood” would have been interesting to say the least.

CanuckChick brings up a good point about His siblings not accepting/believing in His divinity and His hometown rejected Him too. Jesus’ brother James sure came around though.

James was considered a very important figure in Jerusalem, he is always deferred to in matters of Jesus‘ new movement. The Tradition of James The Just is he could enter the Holy of Holies, ate no meat, wore no animal type clothes , never bathed and was consider an exceptional person by all accounts, albeit smelly. From secular and non secular accounts. Not smelly but important. Even when he was stoned to death he was praying for the people stoning him. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.

Here’s a quote from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin-e/shows/religion/jesus/socialclass.htm-l- that puts Jesus’ neighborhood and social class into context.

“Jesus grew up in Nazareth, a village in the Galilee. Now the Galilee, by most of the traditional accounts, is always portrayed as a kind of bucolic backwater ... cherubic peasants on the hillsides. And yet, our recent archaeological discoveries have shown this not to be the case. Nazareth, itself, is a village ... a small village at that. But, it stands less than four miles from a major urban center, Sepphoris. Now, we see Jesus growing up, not in the bucolic backwater, not... in the rural outback, but rather, on the fringes of a vibrant urban life.”

Hypocrite is used by Jesus quite a few times in the NT. Hypocrite has something to do with Greek actors and it’s very peculiar that Jesus would use that word so many times. So the Sepphoris connection makes sense. There’s competing theories as to what carpenter actual meant in 1st century context.

“Tradition has it that Jesus was a carpenter. The term is in Greek "tectone" in Mark's gospel..., "artisan" would be maybe our best translation. But in the pecking order of peasant society, a peasant artisan is lower than a peasant farmer. It probably means usually a peasant farmer who had been pushed off the land and has to make his living, if he can, by laboring.
The difficulty for us in hearing a term like "carpenter" is that we immediately think of a highly skilled worker, and at least in North America, in the middle class, making a very high income. As soon as we take that into the ancient world we are totally lost. Because, first of all, there was no middle class in the ancient world. There were the haves and the have nots, to put it very simply. And in the anthropology of peasant societies, to say that somebody is an artisan or a carpenter is not to compliment them. It is to say that they are lower in the pecking order than a peasant farmer. So it's from the anthropologists that I take the idea that a peasant artisan is not a compliment.”

I agree Ladyhawk that “he did not choose a princess upon whom to bestow his seed, he chose a simple peasant girl of simple faith. That says volumes about artificial constructs of human worth; God obviously meant to make a point, don't you think?”

I think the Gospels are trying to show us how a peasant can be God’s chosen one to spread His word. Jesus even mentions how the poor are better than the rich. In this way it’s showing how the priests and the ruling class shouldn’t be envied but should be pitied. That anyone can achieve the Kingdom of God not just the rich or well connected.

“And while we're at it, getting back to the original focus of this thread, how could it be that a woman "of means" as Mary Magdalene is said to have been, be married to an itinerant rabbi who came of peasant stock (notwithstanding the fireside stories of King David)?”

There’s a theory that Mary Magdalene was a widow and inherited her money from her late husband, thus freeing her to pick up and follow Jesus without any stigma. Again pure speculation but it would fit where she got her money from. Normally Jewish women wouldn’t get any money from their fathers it would go to the eldest son. If she was the only surviving sibling I think it went to an uncle, from there I have no clue. Roman women could buy and possess property and petition for divorce but Mary was Jewish so that doesn’t work. In the Lost Tomb movie Mary’s ossuary has a Greek hybrid spelling but I think it’s safe to say she was Jewish.

Jesus was already on the road and fully into His ministry when He saved Mary from the seven demons. This is the first account of Jesus and Mary meeting. Jesus it would seem was single at this point.
If Mary had no living father or no living husband then I guess she would be free to marry anyone she wanted. If Jesus’ father was also dead than Jesus’ marriage to Mary wouldn’t be an arranged one but one of their choosing.

Mary was given the name apostle of apostle in later Traditions. I believe she was one of the original founders of The Jesus Movement, too. She was a teacher, healer, miracle worker and on a spiritual plane with Jesus that the other apostles weren’t. Wife maybe, but I still can’t understand why obfuscate it. It would not change a 1st century Messiah or negate one either. The whole He’s divine He couldn’t, just doesn’t cut it for me. It’s picking and choosing what parts of Jesus were human and what parts were not. He ate, slept, drank but oh not that!!!!

“I am obviously no Biblical scholar, and I confess I get a little bored when the whole "lineage" thing comes up. It smacks of deus ex machina.” Cool use of Latin.

I hear ya on the lineage thing, my mind starts to drift when they get to about the third “and so begot so begot so” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. It was of great importance to The Jewish people, though.

”Your question with regard to James and Paul is really intriguing. I confess to a real bias when it comes to Paul; I think he rather rearranged things to his own liking. Almost everything in doctrinal Christianity that can lead to extremism seems to have its origins in Paul. I'm beginning to think he was the James Dobson of his time....(but this mostly instinct on my part. I can't point to anything to prove it.)”

Paul is a dichotomy from the word go. I can not reconcile Paul with Jesus. Oh had he never traveled that road to Damascus! My take on the guy is he straddled the line between his Roman Citizenship, he uses it a few times to save his butt, and that of a 1st century Rabbi. He purportedly studied under the Rabbi Gamaliel.
He was, by his own admission, a persecutor of the early movement and yet he comes away as the founder of what now is considered Christianity.

“He describes in Galatians, how three years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem, where he met James, and stayed with Simon Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:13–24). According to Acts, he apparently attempted to join the disciples and was accepted only owing to the intercession of Barnabas – they were all understandably afraid of him as one who had been a persecutor of the Church (Acts 9:26-27). Again, according to Acts, he got into trouble for disputing with "Hellenists" (Greek speaking Jews and Gentile "God-fearers") and so he was sent back to Tarsus.”

I think James and the other apostles were going to preach/teach to the Jews or circumcised and Paul was going to teach to the Gentiles or uncircumcised.

“James concurred: "We should not trouble those of the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts15:19–21), and a letter (later known as the Apostolic Decree) was sent back with Paul enjoining them from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality (Acts 15:29), which some consider to be Noahide Law.”

“There is some historical support for he idea that James and Paul did not see eye to eye, I think.“

“Upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem, he gave the apostles his account of bringing Gentiles to the faith. According to Acts, James the Just confronted Paul with the charge that he was teaching the Jews to ignore the law and asked him to demonstrate that he was a law-abiding Jew by taking a Nazirite vow (21:26).”

Paul and Peter (Jesus’ Rock, remember) really got into it.

”Paul recounts how he later publicly confronted Peter (accusing him of Judaizing, also called the "Incident at Antioch" over his reluctance to share a meal with Gentile Christians in Antioch. Paul later wrote: "I opposed [Peter] to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong" and said to the apostle: "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (Gal. 2:11–14). Paul also mentioned that even Barnabas sided with Peter.”

Yet Paul’s where we get our influence on Christian thinking. He was, arguably, more significant than any other single New Testament author for our Christian thought. Nevertheless, he provides the first written account of the relationship of the Christian to the Risen Christ - what it is to be what is considered today Christian.

I may be going back over some of sam’s thread, I haven’t read it yet, it’s late here.

nite all,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/07/07 8:52

A: Whoa! Well, I asked for it, didn't it? Much to ponder in the responses here; I'll need the day, probably, as other duty calls as well. Question: If we're going to be using scriptural passages in discussion here, is there a particular version anyone needs to see? No sense complicating arguments with sub-arguments over translation. For myself, I have no preference. The onlines are easier, because you can copy and paste rather than re-type, but I don't which are considered better or worse. A good day to all!

Name: JMD • Date: 05/07/07 11:01

A: Wow, there's a lot going on in this thread, especially by Todd and Ladyhawk. I'll respond to a couple things for now at least. I see things differently of course.

Panluna: "Jesus would have to be married since he was a Rabbi."

Not necessarily. As Dr. Tabor noted "Phipps argued that Jesus’ status as a Jewish male, a teacher, and a rabbi, would have virtually required that he be married. I have never found these arguments from silence convincing, knowing that there were forms of Judaism, at least according to Josephus and Philo, that honored celibacy, and that Paul himself mounts a strong argument in defense thereof, even as a Jewish male and “rabbi.”

LadyHawk: "This brings me to the wedding at Cana--it works, except for the fact that it won't support Simcha's (Tabor's, too, maybe?) that the Beloved Disciple was Judah son of Jesus and a boy of perhaps 10-13."

Why wouldn't it work? Though as regards the 'Beloved Disciple', well, Simcha thinks it's Judah son of Jesus, Tabor thinks it's Jesus' brother James, and I think it's Mary Magdalene! Agree to disagree, right? Who knows for certain? And perhaps they are all the 'Beloved Disciple'? Jesus' brother, wife and son would all be beloved to him, right? *shrugs*

Todd: "Wouldn’t the Talbot tomb’s “Jesus son of Joseph” be a slap in the face to Jesus? He was born divine? Virgin birth. Sorry off topic, stay focused."

I don't see it as a slap in the face. That would have been Jewish custom. You don't seriously think it would have "Jesus son of God" on it, do you?

The Son of God business came from Paul; it did not come from Jesus' brother James. And I'd believe James before I'd believe Paul - James was Jesus' brother and knew him, yet Paul never even met Jesus. So then why the hey did Paul (and Peter) take over, and not James, not Mary Magdalene?

Oh right, due to the political agenda of the power-tripping church, who wanted and thus pushed James, as well as Mary Magdalene (no women allowed! we want a masculinized religion!) into the background, hoping they'd just fade away, which thank God/dess they haven't. James the Just they turned into James the Less, and they slandered Mary Magdalene, as we all know, by claiming she's a whore.

Hegesippus, (110-180 AD approx) in his writings noted this: "The succession of the church passed to James, the brother of the Lord."

There are also Gnostic sources/texts which claim this - the disciples, asking Jesus who to turn to when he isn't there?, receive the response from Jesus that they are to go to James.

I don't take the virgin birth literally. Besides, the word that was translated to 'virgin' for Jesus' mother Mary, actually only means 'young woman.' And all the old goddess mother traits were templated onto Mary and she's become the perpetual "Virgin Mary", just like other mother goddesses. (lot in common with Isis - but then, the church took over all of Isis' shrines, dedicating a lot of them to the Virgin Mary - the new goddess.)

As John Shelby Spong, I think it was, noted in one of his books: "A literalized myth is a doomed myth."

I see it in symbolic terms, and, since from my perspective the Holy Spirit is the Feminine of God, well, however would a female impregnate another female? as the Christian belief is the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, right? And isn't Mary referred to as the "spouse" of the Holy Spirit per Catholicism? So, that means a gay marriage to me, then! :b

In one of the Gnostic texts, Jesus prays for his earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, and he directs his prayer to his "Father of Truth, and my Mother, the Spirit." And interestingly, in St. John, in the NT, Jesus says that God wants to be worshiped in Spirit [Mother] and in Truth [Father].

All I have time for now. As Ladyhawk noted 'duty calls'.

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/07/07 16:00

A: Okay, that was a LOT of stuff to go through! I tried to hit a little of everything:

CC: Good catch on the educational component. That clarifies things, I think. He went to the little village school, and perhaps, as Todd points out, got a smattering of some more sophisticated ideas from the city down the road, but nonetheless startled the high priests by knowing more than they did!

I’m wondering if the scripture reference to Jesus’ brothers not believing “in him” means (1) that they didn’t believe their parents’ story of his origin and miraculous powers, or (2) that they never heard that story and so were faced with a brother who had suddenly, at age 30, decided he was anointed of God. For them to—at this point—be faced with whether or not to believe in him suggests that the family had not been living with this knowledge all along. Otherwise, they’d have long before resolved the argument around the dinner table.

With regard to “Insight on the Scriptures”, we need to be careful to extrapolate the actual words of the scripture from any subsequent interpretation that seeks to enhance what’s actually been said. The author(s) here is in some ways playing the same game Todd and I are—embroidering what information there is according to instinct, chosen philosophical guidelines, life experience and, perhaps, personal experience of God (not the “God told me to start a war in Iraq and let poor people fend for themselves” kind of experience, but those quietly startling moments of clarity we get from time to time that speak to something other than our own cleverness.)

For instance, the statement that the child “Jesus knew the miraculous nature of his birth and recognized his Messianic future” (based on Luke 2:41-52) is a pretty broad interpretation of “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?” It is placing a template illuminated by 2000 years of interpretation over the original story and engineering the plot backwards. All he said was that he must be in his Father’s house—which indicates (1) he knows God is his biological father and wants to be with him in the temple or (2) he recognizes God as the Father of All, and feels called to serve in the temple as an acolyte. There is no room and no reasonable proof for the flat statement that he also recognizes his “messianic future.” That’s embroidery.

Further: In Luke 2:25-38, in which Simeon recognizes through divine guidance the child Jesus as answer to God’s promise of a savior and tells Mary that her son is destined by God for great things, or in the subsequent passage about the prophetess Anna, there is no foothold for the extended notion that “reasonably, his mother and adoptive father had passed on to him the information obtained through the angelic visitation as well as through the prophecies of Simeon and Anna….” It doesn’t say anything like that.

I make these distinctions only because arguments have been fought for thousands of years over things that aren’t even there to argue over. I recall someone once observing that a good portion of what people believe to part of the Bible is, in fact, taken from Milton’s “Paradise Lost”! So let’s be sure of how we arrive at our understandings.

SAM: Yikes! I can see you find St. Paul the same “dichotomy” as Todd and I do. And I appreciate that you are defending Jesus and his own words here. But, truly, I had no idea there was actually so much evidence! I have read some very positive works on St. Paul, but I have to go back to Matthew 7:13: “you will know them by their fruits.” The fruits of Paul’s labors in service to Jesus are readily seen these days in the radical Christian right of America, who use Paul as an excuse to overlook the forthright teachings of Jesus with regard to war, mixing in politics, persecuting and marginalizing minorities, parsing charity, defying natural law, honoring the equality of women, and, while they’re at it, making a whole lot of money off the deal.

I have to say, I tend to agree that the idea of Paul or any of the disciples “developing” Jesus’ message beyond what he taught—which presupposes he didn’t get around to explaining all it properly while he was here—is pretty presumptuous. “Oh, well, (he might say) Christ Jesus was a little rushed and he just couldn’t get the whole package together before he had to move on—but I’m here to tell you that what he really meant to say was this!” Yeah, right. And this from the guy (use of poetic license coming up) that God had to knock off his high horse with a 2x4 to even get his attention!

The entire 1Corinthians:6 passage relative to the saints judging the world seems rather anathema to the simple “Judge not lest ye be judged” thing, doesn’t it? Why would saints, (defined as the people whose lives most clearly reflect Jesus’ teachings) want to judge people, anyway? It would be abhorrent to them. If nothing else, Paul appears to have invented the stunning self-righteousness of the “we’re saved and you’re not” groups who have followed him through history.

TODD: James sounds like an excellent guy, doesn’t he? Anne Rice makes him Joseph’s son from an earlier marriage, and in the beginning he is jealous of his little brother, though he doesn’t admit it. Finally, as episode upon episode grinds home the truth, he can’t stand it anymore and goes and throws himself down before Jesus and begs him to understand how he feels and to forgive him, which of course Jesus does, and from then on, they understand each other—a very strong bond.

It’s odd, isn’t it, that Paul would eclipse this brother who was the acknowledged heir of the movement and a man who lived the Word as closely as was humanly possible.

Points well made on the subject of Mary Magdalene. I have not studied her a lot so am abysmally ignorant, but I have a friend who is very well versed on her story and keeps telling me to get into it, so I guess I should. Do you suppose Paul had a hand in changing her reputation, or did that happen later?

Re: dues ex machina. Seriously, that’s practically all the Latin I know, and I know it because I write fiction and you have to look out for that kind of stuff. You blow your credibility if the reader can see it working. And Paul’s apparent machinations—or at least the fruits of zealotry—are too obvious not to notice, especially with the marvelous examples being set for us these days.

“Yet Paul’s where we get our influence on Christian thinking. He was, arguably, more significant than any other single New Testament author for our Christian thought. Nevertheless, he provides the first written account of the relationship of the Christian to the Risen Christ - what it is to be what is considered today Christian.”

Ah! I hadn’t realized this: so he DEFINED what a relationship with Christ had to be like—and if you didn’t have the proscribed relationship, then you maybe didn’t have one at all? This sounds strangely familiar—like, “if you don’t go to MY church, you’re going to Hell.” Etc. Etc. (I’m a little touchy on this subject: savagely evangelized at 10 by a rabid child zealot whose presentation of the conditions by which I MIGHT be able to escape the wrath of God and Jesus’ indifference took 40 years to fully deconstruct!)

JMD: My reasoning on why the wedding wouldn’t work was the timeline. The wedding was at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry—3 years before his death. That would make him 30 then. To have a child of 10 or 13 he would have to have been married in his early twenties. (UNLESS, of course, Judah was Mary Magdalene’s from the marriage in which Todd says she was widowed—Beloved, then of his step-father, but not a biological child?)

Interesting, isn’t it, how many times the central figure of the young woman (goddess, Virgin Mary what-have-you) turns up in the spiritual histories of the world. Also the sacrificial male. The first time this struck me was many years ago when I was in college and taking a course in Myth. The professor was detailing archetypes in world myths and somebody pointed that the same ones existed in Christianity. This upset a number of people who found that blasphemous, but I remember very clearly thinking that this rather proved there was something to believe in, because the germ(s) of the same Truth existed across the board and across time—the literal embodiment of the Tolkien line: “History became Legend, Legend became Myth.”

Hope no one is offended. I can’t tell you how nice it is to have this sort of conversation with people who don’t SCREAM at you!

Name: Todd • Date: 05/08/07 2:38

A: JMD,

Well JMD, I think we’ve hit every heretical topic in this thread now! The Virgin Birth.

“And isn't Mary referred to as the "spouse" of the Holy Spirit per Catholicism? So, that means a gay marriage to me, then! :b”

Now remember JMD, being gay and gay marriages will get you excommunicated. So where would The Trinity be without the Holy Spirit? Sorry Dan Brown we’ve found the greatest cover up of all time.

The virgin birth poses a conundrum. Theories abound from Mary being raped or having sexual relations with a Roman solider named Panthera to of course the Holy Spirit impregnation. Was she the perpetual virgin or are the siblings of Jesus hers and Joseph's? Was Joseph a widower and brought children to his union with Mary? Have we misinterpreted brother with cousin and Jesus was an only child?

I personally agree with contemporary scholars that Jesus’ brother and sisters are from Mary and Joseph. Joseph could of brought some children from a previous marriage but they were Husband and Wife. A 1st century Jewish couple would have been expected to have children. Too much has been made about women being barren in both the OT and NT. Look at the mess Hagar got into. I also think the Gospel writers would of latched onto Mary being barren after the virgin birth as another way to prove Jesus’ divinity.

The NT makes it clear that an angel told Joseph about it because Joseph, by right, could of stoned Mary to death. That seems to “fix it” in the NT. Either way Joseph was a heck of guy. He could of backed out of the marriage and no mortal would of held it against him. God, on the other hand, probably would have. The gods mated with mortals in many traditions so even this is not unheard of. Yet one more way to prove Jesus’ divinity.

Could be in “symbolic terms” as you say, of course it could. You find that a lot in the Gospels.

Here again we have to ask the question: Were the Gospel writers recording history or were they trying to fit Jesus’ life into the Old Testaments Prophecies. What better arguement can you have, "well my Messiah was born of a virgin from the seed of God".

“Scholars of the historical Jesus dismiss the Virgin Birth and the nativity of Jesus as an Early Christian story to equate Jesus to Moses. In Moses’ time there was the Massacre of the Innocents and to show him fulfilling the prophecy (the return from Egypt and so on).”

The literary devices and parables of the bible leave it wide open to interpretations or misinterpretations. Look how easy it is to quote the bible, out of context, to justify or explain anything.

Since I tend to jump around quite a bit I’ll throw this out there. Is it really the exact words in the bible or the gist of it that really matters. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know all about The Word and The Word is The Word the actual Word given as The Word to be taken as The Word spoken as The Word. But what about the meaning and the lesson trying to be taught by The Word?

Think about it. Religions pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe. An eye for an eye “oh that‘s not meant to be literal“ the part about killing or stoning your children for not honoring thy mother and father “they didn‘t mean it that way“. When’s the last time your local church had a good old animal sacrifice. I know the Gentiles/Jews division. Look at how many people can quote chapter and verse but have absolutely no idea of the meaning of what they say.

So I agree with your statement that the virign birth could be in "symbolic terms". A new covenant between God and His people. A virgin birth would reinforce that bond.

As Ladyhawk put it so eloquently “embroidering what information there is according to instinct, chosen philosophical guidelines, life experience and, perhaps, personal experience of God (not the “God told me to start a war in Iraq and let poor people fend for themselves” kind of experience, but those quietly startling moments of clarity we get from time to time that speak to something other than our own cleverness.)

The gaps are too many and the text, sometimes, too vague not to.

I agree that the Isis tradition/cult has similarities to the NT story actually vice a versa . The flood story and The Epic of Gilgamesh are pretty similar too, I believe. Osiris and the resurrection have similarities too.

Ladyhawk “Hope no one is offended. I can’t tell you how nice it is to have this sort of conversation with people who don’t SCREAM at you!”

YES I AM OFFENDED!!!! YOU *&^%$##@@ HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!

Really doesn’t have much impact by just using the caps lock;]

I’ve been waiting years to be able to have civilized conversations like this.

I have a few things to reply to in your thread but I’ll have to hit those tomorrow,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/08/07 9:10

A: TODD: "Since I tend to jump around quite a bit I’ll throw this out there. Is it really the exact words in the bible or the gist of it that really matters. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know all about The Word and The Word is The Word the actual Word given as The Word to be taken as The Word spoken as The Word. But what about the meaning and the lesson trying to be taught by The Word? "

:D Of COURSE it's the gist. That's rather the irony of all the screaming, isn't it?

"Look at how many people can quote chapter and verse but have absolutely no idea of the meaning of what they say."

And that's the part that's the most puzzling to me. People are just dazzled by all the parts that obscure the message. It's like mass ADD ("Oh, look! A chicken!"). Like everybody has a processing chip missing. For God's sake, people, the book is a history of the evolution of the human mind; about coming out of the dark ages of spiritual awareness and into the light with God.

It's about applying the simplest principles so that we can get along with each other and not solve every problem by going to war on one scale or another. How hard is this?

You gotta wonder how many times a "day" God looks at us and wonders "What was I thinking? These guys are hopeless!"

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/08/07 10:21

A: Good one,Ladyhawk!!!

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/08/07 12:17

A: Ladyhawk & Todd: "I’ve been waiting years to be able to have civilized conversations like this." You bet!

First, I think we're getting our Jameses confused. At least I am. Apparently, there are four James mentioned in the bible.
1) James, the father of the apostle Judas (not Iscariot)
2) James, the son of Zebedee - brother of John and one of the original twelve apostles.
3) James, another apostle of Jesus and son of Alphaeus. (his other name - Clopas. (James the Less)
4) James, the son of Mary and half brother of Jesus. Not an apostle, but was an overseer of the Christian congregation at Jerusalem. Wrote the bible book bearing his name.

------------------------------------------------
"Wit-h- regard to “Insight on the Scriptures”, we need to be careful to extrapolate the actual words of the scripture from any subsequent interpretation that seeks to enhance what’s actually been said. "

I agree.

--------------------------------------------------

R-e- Paul - At times, he does come off as something of a mysoginist. In my view, however, he redeems himself in his letter to the Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one (person) in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise." (Gal 3:28, 29)

From my read of the bible, woman's role in the family and congregation, is not a lesser one, but rather a different one. Some churches have subverted woman's proscribed role, to the understandable wrath of many.

-----------------------------------------

R-e- "saints" judging the world

Consider 1 Corinthians 6 in this context:
Revelations 14:1 says: " And I saw, and, look! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads."

Rev 14:3,4 goes on to identify this 144,000 - "And they are singing as if a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one was able to master that song but the hundred and forty-four thousand, who have been bought from the earth."

Rev 7:4 mentions them again: "And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel."

Jesus' disciples understood the Kingdom to be an actual government of God, though they did not comprehend the reach of its domain. Jesus directly promised his apostolic followers that they would occupy "thrones". Matthew 19:28 - "Jesus said to them: ""Truly I say to you, In the re-creation, when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also yourselves sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

On his last night with his disciples, Jesus spoke to them of a "new covenant" to become operative toward his followers, as a result of his sacrifice. Luke 22:28, 29 - "However, you are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel."

This is the answer to the petitiion to God: "Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth." (Matthew 6:10)

Ok, the Readers' Digest version: The "kingdom" is God's government, with Jesus at its head...a theocracy. God has selected "co-rulers" for Jesus. They have been "bought" from the earth. They number 144,000. Among that number are ones that accepted and followed Jesus when he was on earth.

They will rule over a "great crowd" living on the earth. Rev 7:9 - "After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands."

Rev 7:14 goes on to identify this "great crowd" - "So right away I said to him: ""My lord, you are the one that knows."" And he said to me: ""These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.""

-------------------------------------

I'm- a little fuzzy on how the Mary Magdalene Was A Whore story got started. I believe it was a church leader hundreds of years ago. Suited their purposes at the time of maintaining a male-dominated church.

----------------------------------------

Re- the virgin birth - we can go around in circles about this one adfinitum. Personally, I believe that for the creator of the universe, it would be childs-play to achieve the impregnation of a human woman, however he did it.

------------------------------------------

-I- don't want to turn this into a book (Oh wait, I already have!), so will post back re the OT prophecies about the Messiah and laws.

I'm going outside now to shovel gravel, and provide lunch for the local black-fly population.

CC